Thread: Women in Combat

Is this a good decision? Should women serve in combat roles?

Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta plans to announce Thursday a lifting of the ban on female service members in combat roles, a watershed policy change that was informed by women?s valor in Iraq and Afghanistan and that removes the remaining barrier to a fully inclusive military, defense officials said.

Panetta made the decision ?upon the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,? a senior defense official said Wednesday, an assertion that stunned female veteran activists who said they assumed that the brass was still uneasy about opening the most physically arduous positions to women. The Army and the Marines, which make up the bulk of the military?s ground combat force, will present plans to open most jobs to women by May 15.

Pentagon to remove ban on women in combat - The Washington Post

As long as they can meet the current standards: yes. I used to disagree wholeheartedly because I was thinking that the men would try to overcompensate for the women (putting people at risk), but I think attitudes are changing and it wouldn't be that big of an issue.

Originally Posted by wlillie

As long as they can meet the current standards: yes. I used to disagree wholeheartedly because I was thinking that the men would try to overcompensate for the women (putting people at risk), but I think attitudes are changing and it wouldn't be that big of an issue.

Aren't the current standards different for women? I disagree with this. I think that it will put others at risk. If soldiers are captured on the front lines and the enemy is raping a woman soldier repeatedly while making her fellow soldiers watch I don't see how that would not make them break much quicker. Especially with the Taliban and the type of enemy that we are facing that use rape as a weapon even on their own people.

The enemy can rape a male soldier just as easily but that's never used as an excuse to not put men on the front lines. ITA with Lillie that attitudes are (finally!) changing in the military and women in combat is no longer the risk to our own soldiers that it might have been years ago. If a woman wants that job -- and if she's physically capable of doing the job -- then I have no problem putting her there. When our building was on fire, half the firefighters were women. They came barrelling up the stairs in all their equipment and pulling heavy hoses and chopping the door open right along with the men. I didn't notice any difference in their performance. I've seen a female police officer chase & take down a suspect who got away from two male officers, she used no gun, no taser, and had no problem getting that guy to the ground. I wouldn't hesitate to put any one of those women into combat, if any of them wanted to be there.

If women want to serve in combat and meet the physical requirements I would support that. I would not support drafting women.

Originally Posted by Spacers

The enemy can rape a male soldier just as easily but that's never used as an excuse to not put men on the front lines.

So what happens when a woman is captured and kept in captivity and raped for months at a time and becomes pregnant. Could that happen to a man? There are times when POW's were held for years at a time.

Originally Posted by GloriaInTX

So what happens when a woman is captured and kept in captivity and raped for months at a time and becomes pregnant. Could that happen to a man? There are times when POW's were held for years at a time.

Then she has a baby, obvs. Any woman who volunteers to serve for active combat duty knows that this is a possibility. If she accepts this who are you to worry about it? There are worse things you can do to a person than rape a woman. For instance, what if they were, say, castrating another male soldier in front of a male soldier? Or making one male soldier rape another male soldier? I mean, we can get as kinky as you want.

I agree with those that said if she wants to and has the physical ability to then she should be able to do it.

Originally Posted by Potter75

If women want to serve in combat and meet the physical requirements I would support that. I would not support drafting women.

Why do you think that wouldn't be the next step?

Originally Posted by Potter75

If women want to serve in combat and meet the physical requirements I would support that. I would not support drafting women.

With this stance, how do you justify females not being forced to sign up with the Selective Service upon reaching age 18 (i.e. draft eligibility?) Couldn't their male counterparts claim discrimination?

FTR -- I am still trying to figure out my stance on this topic. I share some of the concerns expressed, dislike the idea of a draft (but honestly that may be for *both* sexes although I *get* the need)... this with several relatives in the military (all voluntary) -- including one son in the Air Force.

At the same time, I know that in the past I have broken through gender barriers and understand that there are women that want these jobs.

Lillie -- when you referenced "current standards", did you mean current physical standards EQUAL to their male counterparts?